[At-Large] Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Dec 19 19:47:10 UTC 2015

I believe that Bruce and Mike abstained due to conflict of interest.

Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On December 19, 2015 1:47:49 PM EST, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com> wrote:
>Dear Kaili
>Just to post the link to the recordings of The Board Session at the
>ICANN 41 meeting on Monday which passed the resolution to launch the
>gTLD program: http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24505
>It wasn't just George Sadowsky who voted no, Bruce Tonkin and Mike
>Silber also abstained.
>Dev Anand
>On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Alan Greenberg
><alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> Hi Kaili,
>> If you were at that meeting *AND* remember what was said, I don't
>think you
>> are eligible to be called a newcomer any more!
>> For better or worse, ICANN preserves pretty much everything. You can
>> that transcript at
>> , If you search for the second occurrence of "sadowsky", you will
>find what
>> you are looking for. It was a rather unusual Board meeting held
>> after the opening session on Monday. I always presumed it was held on
>> Monday instead of the traditional end-of-the-week time to allow time
>> partying and self-congratulations.
>> To find pretty much everything available from past meetings, go to
>> Meetings site at https://meetings.icann.org/en/. It is always
>> pointed to from the ICANN home page in the box talking about the
>> meeting. from there, click on the top navigation menu item "Calendar
>> Archives". The ICANNnn links point to the specific meeting site.
>> Alan
>> At 19/12/2015 11:13 AM, Kan Kaili wrote:
>> Talking about the new gTLD program, I remember attending the 2011
>> in Singapore.  As I remember, that time George Sadowski was the only
>> member who voted against it.  Maybe some of his opinions, as well as
>> of the debate, could shed some light for new comers like me to better
>> understand the issue.
>> I just wonder where I can find this.  Anybody can help?  Thank you.
>> Kaili Kan
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Carlton Samuels
>> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>> Cc: John R. Levine ; At-Large Worldwide
>> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2015 10:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD
>> Subsequent Procedures
>> I can attest to all that Olivier has recorded here.  Our colleague
>> Leibovitch, as penholder on the ALAC statement on PAG had a greater
>> keeping us focused on the priority topics than finding grist for what
>> wrong with the details of the program, at least from our perspective.
>> We were the first to call the Morality and Public Order clause odious
>and an
>> assault on common sense.  And despite the severe criticism the ALAC,
>to its
>> credit, did not back off our interest in the Applicant Support
>> This never met expectations. But at least we were in the fight. We
>should be
>> proud of the body of work from the ALAC in that period.
>> -Carlton
>> ==============================
>> Carlton A Samuels
>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>> =============================
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
><ocl at gih.com>
>> wrote:
>> Dear Christopher,
>> sorry I am only picking this up now - it was filed in the wrong
>> My comments below:
>> On 09/12/2015 20:08, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
>>> Hmmm … following a brief readd (there are 160 pp.), it would appear:
>>> 1.  That there was no attempt to update the 2010 economic studies,
>>> were considered to be adequate.
>> The economic study (which can be found at
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2010-12-03-en ) was published
>> two parts, such was the pressure on ICANN to be able to tick the
>> "economic study" box that had been set along the path to launching
>> new gTLD process. From memory, a public consultation on these reports
>> was never launched. The only ALAC comment relating to the Applicant
>> Guidebook & the new gTLD program was here:
>> As you can see, the ALAC was not happy about a number of things which
>> then came back to bite ICANN later on. "told you so"
>> In the meantime, read the economic study and you'll see how naive and
>> rushed it is.
>>> 2.  There is one reference to an opinion that the demand for new
>gTLDs was
>>> 'illusory'. Not clear whether this refers to the demand from
>Registries or
>>> from Registrants.
>> There was a demand for new gTLDs from potential applicants. Some
>> applicants had already "sold" their program to investors and clients.
>> have strong memories of the ICANN public forum having scores of
>> queueing up asking the Board to give the new gTLD program the go
>> and that the applicant guidebook was good enough to be signed off.
>> ALAC view, as you can see from above, was that it wasn't ready. That
>> introduced some tension all around, with some people accusing the
>> that it was against new gTLDs and that this position was counter to
>> Internet end users out there who couldn't register domain names in an
>> already crowded space. The ALAC stood by its position but was
>> ignored. Moreover you'll note that there's a complete fumble on
>> part with regards to Registrant Rights & Responsibilities with a
>> "Registrant Benefits" part and "Registrant Rights" sub-part. Anyway
>> very poor follow-up on this on ICANN's part.
>> As a result, I am shedding no tears for any failed new gTLD. I am
>> for the end users that are going to be affected and I think that the
>> ALAC needs to watch this very closely, to make sure end users who
>> registered domains in new gTLDs are treated well. The ALAC's relevant
>> working groups should keep a watch over that. Unfortunately the most
>> active participants are already flat out on ICANN Accountability &
>> things, but the WGs would benefit from sharp eyes & tongues.
>>> 3.  There are several references to the financial evaluation of the
>>> applicants. However, one may wonder what that consisted of as
>applied to
>>> 800+ applicants (and still counting).
>>>      I would have to ask how many qualified financial analysts would
>>> been required to do a serious job on so many applications in such a
>>> period of time.
>>>      In my time it was called risk analysis; nowadays it is called
>>> tests'.
>>> The gist of the report seems to be to recommend a massive new PDP to
>>> review and propose what to do next. Every conceivable topic is
>>> except the economics of the DNS markets and the financial position
>of the
>>> Registries. Perhaps some prioritisation is called for.
>> At-Large participants will need to be part of that PDP. Expect it to
>> start soon as once again there are forces out there that want another
>> application round of Ponz... I mean new gTLDs to start as soon as
>> Kindest regards,
>> Olivier
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> ________________________________
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20151219/ad749167/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list